You got it.

It's especially funny because Richard apparently missed that my husband is a stay-at-home dad. Oopsie.


>>> [ ... ] people who make the comments you attribute to Ann Coulter and then claim that they are not saying that mothers are the ones who should be home full time with their kids are being disingenuous.

Krissy-- If a person has never said what you assign to them, does that mean you're a mind reader, or that you're just making stuff up? I'd love to know how that works.

>>> It's especially funny because Richard apparently missed that my husband is a stay-at-home dad.

That's especially funny as your husband's personal status is completely immaterial to anything I wrote since he alone is statistically irrelevant. Oopsie ;)


Perhaps Coulter has never said that a woman's place is in the home. She has stated that woman shouldn't have the vote, and are too stupid to handle money, and that they shouldn't be in the Armed Forces because they're simply too vicious to be serving in positions of authority. Well, you know, far be it from me to pretend to read someone's mind, but are these the sort of folk she thinks ought to be raising the next generation?


If a person has never said what you assign to them

Richard, the logic is not that hard to follow. If Ann Coulter says that children need a parent at home all day, and also says that women (not men, just women) should be honored to make the choice to stay at home, she's clearly implying that mothers ought to be at home with their children.

your husband's personal status is completely immaterial to anything I wrote since he alone is statistically irrelevant

Hm. You wrote that I was stuck in the 1950s and questioned whether I live in a backwater. You also offered 'friends of mine' as evidence. In other words, you accused me of being clueless about stay-at-home dads and then provided a statistically irrelevant example. Why not just admit you put your foot in your mouth and move on?

If a person has never said what you assign to them

You're doing a rather bang-up job on the 'making it up' front; why don't you tell us? Perhaps you could throw in another fake link while you're at it.


I guess what I always keep coming back to, especially in a "personal is political" context, ultimately: it's not really for any one person to determine if someone else, who's trying to raise her own consciousness, is doing it "falsely" or not.

I mean, there's a place for confrontation (for that is what that is, telling someone else she's "falsely conscious,") but:

1) there are ways and ways

2) there are times and places

3) otherwise it's going to have the opposite effect of what you were going for; unless indeed your goal was to just alienate the other person more, or at best shame her into going along with whatever you've deemed "true consciousness."


In my feminist group of friends, and in my feminist theory classes, we talk about false consciousness all the time.

It's refreshing to finally meet a feminist who actually has studied the epistemological roots of feminism rather than simply being a lifestyle feminist who is guided in her belief by whatever sounds fashionable at the moment. It is fascinating to study the philosophical origins of movements, even the ones that we disagree with.

I happen to think Marxism is one of the most sophisticated and complex theories in modern economic and political philosophy.

What's next, a defense of Nazism on the grounds that it was simply perverted from it's true nature by a cabal of evil men? Marxism is better suited for the social nature of ants, not humans, and to impose an anti-human philosophy onto innocents is the recipe for the slaughters that have resulted. There is nothing sophisticated, nor complex, about Marxism and it's only use is as a badge of signaling "sophistication" to the other progressive "sophisticates" one wishes to posture towards.

The Happy Feminist

It's refreshing to finally meet a feminist who actually has studied the epistemological roots of feminism rather than simply being a lifestyle feminist who is guided in her belief by whatever sounds fashionable at the moment.

False dichotomy. Also implies that one cannot think intelligently about feminism without having an academic background. Average people who perhaps have not had the opportunity to study various types of feminist theory can still make intelligent decisions about feminist issues. It is both erroneous and insulting to imply that we non-academic feminists are merely following fashion.

And don't forget that Feminism is rooted in Enlightenment values.

As for Marxism, I certainly disagree with Marxist economic theory and, like most thinking people, I deplore the abuses of various totalitarian Marxist regimes. But to simply label all Marxist ideas as automatically "evil and dangerous" is a bit simplistic. Marxism is certainly a far more intelligent and complex philosophy than Nazism.


Marxism is certainly a far more intelligent and complex philosophy than Nazism.

I don't think that I implied that there was an intellectual equivalence between the two. One can build intellectual castles of the grandest complexity on false premises and then all of the intellectual scaffolding and the complex foundations will come crashing down, often in the most horrendous fashion, when the premise upon which all is built is falsified.

The core of Marxist thought is built upon a false premise of humanity. Therefore, all of the window dressing that people so admire is for naught. It is no more true to say that Marxism was simply corrupted by the commmunist regimes of the world and that it will succeed if given the proper chance than it is to argue the same for Nazi philosophy. Both are evil, both are built upon false premises, and there is no such thing as a well-intentioned Nazi or Marxist. Adherents to either philosophy deserve full condemnation, and in fact, the body count of Marxism, which is far, far larger than that of the Nazis, justifies an even greater degree of opprobrium


Marxism wouldn't work on ants either, as ants are the only other strict hierchey creatures who keep slaves.

Marxism would work better on say, gorillas.


boy what a nice cadre of "useful idiots" another communist term...

useful idiots are people who further a cause, but who dont agree with the leaders and such... they do this by creating PERSONAL VERSIONS of what they want to have as part of their identity. (after all, what woman would want to say she is independent? so independent that she doesnt need feminism to point out the false conciousnesses!)

in this way... "lifestyle feminists", "marxist feminists", etc... all get clustered under the same political power umbrella...

(in catholicism, the parallel is how many people say they are catholic, but dont follow its teachings (which makes them protestant technically)? well, when asked what they are, they will agree with the line "i am a catholic" even though they arent)

these concepts rely on the followers ignorance... and that can be seen VERY clearly in their ignorance of political systems. if they actually knew the systems they spout about, they wouldnt make such "not even wrong" statements as:
"Marxism is certainly a far more intelligent and complex philosophy than Nazism"

in case you "grrls" dont get it, the nazi's were socialists... and stalin and hitler were on the same side, till hitler screwed stalin before stalin could screw hitler.

BOTH are socialists!

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".

and it was the communists that labeled everything against communism as fascis, just after the trials..

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

ALL The leaders and founders were COMMUNIST SOCIALISTS...
take the time to read the output of the communist interntaional, when in the later part of its life it dictated gramsci's ideas to rot out the west from inside. the TWO things that it detailed would do this was the taking over of not for profits by socialists (which most now are that way - even as ford and his son said so!)... and that feminism was the front of this communist rotting out. [go to CPUSA and read their own writings. a lot more will come out soon now that their archives have been opened]

the point is that all of feminism is predicated on western womens false conciousness... which is why the author doesnt understand how much of a foundation this is... as she is not privy to the inner circles stuff (as clearly illustrated by the behavior of the inner circle person chastising her as being a lifestyle feminist... a derogatory if i ever heard one)

and just to point out... they have a different idea of feminism than most women do.

from its very source and theories, feminism IS communism... and the only way that anyone will believe it, is once the changes they have been making for 40 years have come to fruition...

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

or will you tell me simone is a has been?

what you dont realize is that your following the femal fifth column of the communist socialsits... and think that their ideas can somehow be purified by your personal considerations... that is what makes a useful idiot.

its clear that most dont understand the power of reletivism when weilded in the right way... which is why this is a power dialectic
Power for power sake not power to help women, or men, or what not - which is why they are now siding with the islamics.. there is more power to milk there, than there is sticking to "principals" of which they dont have any.

you can see there is great misery as created by the feminists, if your head aint cloudy, and thats a purpose... the more misery they make, the more they claim to help, the more power they get... which is why their programs are contradictory!!! they want to control both sides of an argument (which is what marx and such said.. and why hegelian dialectics is used in a scissors fasion).

so you have feminists AGAINST pornography.. and feminists FOR pornography..
[and tons of other things like this]

like marxism, its a false system.. it cant be disproved and so it is meaningless... for no valid system can take both sides of an argument and be valid... however believing several contradictions before breakfast has never been a problem of people lving an IDEOLOGY (feminism) rather than separate meritorious ideas.

and just to be clear... the left is no fan of liberty..
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -- Bill Clinton

the point her is that socialism leads ALWAYS to totalitarian ends...

the reason is VERY simple...

its whole basis is the forced redistribution of wealth at the end of a gun.

and it was the communists that said tha, and by far, the biggest definers of what feminism is are communist women. (and many were also women of the kkk! how nice... the movement is communist and racist at its core, but somehow, apoligists, like this author tend to put a spin on it)

and why did the communists work through women?

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx, The Woman Question
[perhaps she knew her family better than the feminsts do?]

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

they knew that they could induce ENVY, ENTITLEMENT, etc... in the women, and by doing that, tear down everything... (in fact they say they want to tear down everyting...but we dont listent to them, lke we didnt listen to mein kampf and hitler, like we didnt listen to gramsci, and others)

for some reason, we like what they promise more than what they are...

we dont even want to accept that what they say is what they stand for

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” -- Karl Marx
[which is why we no lonver refer to ourselves as a republic.. we aer about to have a dictatorship of the proletariat...]

what the author has forgotten is that symbols are abstractions. she has taken in the communist dialectic that symbols are the meanings...

in the west shakespeare pointed out the contradiction that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... he knew that the name and the outcome were synergies... scientifically a rose would smell the same... experientially the name may change the perception..

and so the communists have played games with the words...

their term for "right mind", and "proper thinking" became the communist socialist feminist version... Politically Correct...

their term "false conciousness" is never mentioned other than classes, but is how they ACT... (just ask susan faludi, and others who have started to question their own)

the nazies are not liked by feminists because they were socialists who sought to exterminate a lot of jews (not their only exterminations by far), and most of the founding women of feminism are or were of jewish lineage. kind of makes it hard for them to side with his following the teachings of feminist margret sanger. who created the negro project to exterminate the blacks here, that later was RENAMED - planned parenthood... after all, what is in a name?

you see.. by changing it from "the negro project" they changed the publics eye on it... but its purpose is the same... population control..

and to show that the left is fascist... (and the right too now, since radical has to be met with radical... in fact, there is no right in america any more.. the choices are between fascism of the middle, and fascism to communism on the left.

all you ahve to do is go to the DNC website... and look for the "third way"..

the "third way" is fascism...

on the far right, you have capitalism, individualism and freedom...
on the far left you have socialism, authoritarian, statism...

in the middle (today) you have fasicm the third way... the combining of capitalism, and socialism... (the game of calling everyone right of communism as fascists, labeled capitalists as fascsists with the same brush)

i will show that feminism is totalitarian, authoritarian, but the author doesnt realize that she is a useful idiot.

feminists make the "private as public" that is anotehr communist point..
because under that concept, there is no more privacy from the state.

the feminists have managed to get teh state to do something its not allowed to do... and thats delegate powers... and they have delegated the power to family areas, to destroy the family... (of which most women havent even read kim gandy position on this! even though she leads NOW)

while a police officer needs a warrant... a child protection agent can walk in, take your children, and walk away..

feminists say... its for the children... yet... they dont know who said that first... and why it was done!

as long as so many are willing to us their thinking powers in order to show why an elephant is not an elephant, we are doomed... because there is a large authoritarian totalitarian elepant in the room, and the communists funded and promoted it (so say them!), and its their elephant. (just read marcuse, dewey, adorno, etc)

everything that she holds dear is from the far right.. not the left.. and thats the sad thing... she and everyone is running in the direction they call the tune.

the idea was to split us up permanently, and control both sides of the dialog.. women didnt need feminism, they were moving forward, but impatient. so they made a deal with a devil from the start - even first wave feminsits were communists! so the communists held the men down, which entrenched the communist feminism... however, if you know their dialectic, then you will know why now there are mens organizations.. hegel and their games show that by doing this they get to divide the population... and while the women are yelling about the men,and the men are cowed by other men in state, their homes are gone, their familes stolen, and everything else.

and just to show... feminist are following socialism since the nazi's were socialists!!! and see the cry below that feminsits have taken up? "for the children"... it was hitlers idea to help bring in a totalitarian state, and feminists have taken the same thing!!!!!!!!

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
-Adolf Hitler

feminism has figured out how to get the smartest and brightest women to stop competing!!! to remove their contribution... by defining that everything is expereicne, they make genes nothing, and if genes are nothing, then it doesnt matter if you have a child and put yourself into the future as your past put you here! in essence, your so not special, that there is no reason for you to have a play in the next round of life.

12 billion years of famines, disasters, wars, and so forth... all with everyone WANTING to live...

and now, women are just signing the creation they are and its further participation to oblivion...
[you may not know who your grandmothers and grandfathers are, just as history will lose information... but your genese and your life is a testimony to an unbroken chain of life 12 billion plus years old... ]
and now, demographically, i hope feminists like the hijab, and such (i dont).. the reason is simple... they have eaten out the foundations of our culture and society... and the islamics will take over by clear vote...

the only way to oppose the islamic take over of the west is either a totalitarian state (which is the purpose), or to waste away and let their greater birth rates show what the game is about. end of story.

the west created the enlightenment, and then was damned for it!!

the east didnt do that, and rather than have such ideas go forward, the too far toof ast crowd has insured that none of it will live going forward (after all, what families do they have to pass things down to?)

The comments to this entry are closed.